Its about time to Change or Add age gourp. Maybe -10, 11-18, & 19+ or -10, 11-14,15-18, & 19+. Majority Player are 15+. It maybe time for change for next year

ryanvergel

06/14/2006, 12:21 AM

Agreed,
I support 12-, 13-17, 18+... just like Japan.

Flaming_Spinach

06/14/2006, 12:23 AM

Its about time to Change or Add age gourp. Maybe -10, 11-18, & 19+ or -10, 11-14,15-18, & 19+. Majority Player are 15+. It maybe time for change for next year

Are you saying we need to alter the age groups just so 15+ does not dominate the attendance numbers so much?

Sounds like a flawed way of doing things to me.

PS. 11-18 wouldn't work. 11-14 is already dominated by the 13 and 14 year-olds. Increasing the limit of that age group by 4 years would likely be a disaster.

JandPDS

06/14/2006, 01:53 AM

Pokemon needs a senior division for us old folks. Last year no one over 20 was in the top 4 at
worlds.

I would like to see 10 and under 11-15, 16-20 and 21 and up.
This would also end the Top8/Top 16 debate once and for all.

NoPoke

06/14/2006, 02:16 AM

30+ It must be obvious that the only extra division needed is 30+

===========================================

Epyon0015: I'm not dismissing your suggestions its just that there is another factor from the the darker side of our society. I don't think we will ever see an ADULT division at worlds. Even the mearest hint of single older males and young children would place the brand at risk :(

IMHO POP want worlds to be seen as a FAMILY event. We wont see any decisions that might move OP away from a family friendly and kid safe environment. No matter what the merit of changing the age groups from a players point of view, I don't see it happening if it moves us away from family values.

Don't forget that there is already an 18+ event. Make that two 18+ events as there was one in Europe too this year. :clap: Way to go POP.:clap:

KG1337

06/14/2006, 04:21 AM

I support the 12-. 13-17, and 18+ just because a least around here, we usually get less than 10 people for 10- and 11-14 even at gym challenges :/

NoPoke

06/14/2006, 04:29 AM

I support the 12-. 13-17, and 18+ just because a least around here, we usually get less than 10 people for 10- and 11-14 even at gym challenges :/

and where I am we are mostly 10-. if everywhere had very few 10- or 14-players then your arguement would be sound.

annisarich

06/14/2006, 04:46 AM

12-
13-17
18+

30+ and I brought a kid to play (not eligible if you have won a premier event besides pre releases/ smaller prizes)

The Gorn

06/14/2006, 06:22 AM

I agree with the 30+ division.

And we shouldn't be playing for scholarships. Let the kids work for those themselves.

sceptilerancher

06/14/2006, 07:09 AM

11-under,12-15,16+

cmon cmon cmon!

Poliwag92

06/14/2006, 07:19 AM

every age gets its own division.

Who has those 100+ year old parents/grand parents that they can win a trip for?

jesschow12

06/14/2006, 08:15 AM

actually its not the problem with age group,its their brains that matters whether is it working and thinking how to play properly.I prefer u to make another thread regarding additional format instead of this age group...

raikou33

06/14/2006, 08:41 AM

I like the age groups how they are now my sister has done well in 10- and she just turned 11 so now im happy she gets to increase her level of play, while im in the 15+ and i like to be more challanged being able to play anyone over the age of 15, i dont want it to be 18+ because thats where i see most of the challange and me being 17 wont be able to compete against them for another year

_Cookie

06/14/2006, 08:50 AM

10- , 11-17. 18+ not everyone can pull out $200 for an LBS deck

sceptilerancher

06/14/2006, 08:53 AM

11-17...

Ignatious

06/14/2006, 10:33 AM

i like 12-, 13-17, (maybe) 18-21, 22+
i like the idea of an 18-21 age group because thats the age were kids start thinking about/going to college, and is the age group that is most interested in scholarships. if not, i like 12-, 13-17, 18+

yoshi1001

06/14/2006, 10:41 AM

12- is rather inttimidating to young kids who have to go against 12-year-olds.

David's Confused Pokedad

06/14/2006, 11:38 AM

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

sceptilerancher

06/14/2006, 11:44 AM

12-15 is kool idea me tinx

Ditto

06/14/2006, 11:45 AM

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

Who said it wasn't broke?

homeofmew

06/14/2006, 11:51 AM

there needs to be a seperation between
20 yr olds and 40 yr old 40 yr old have more money.
it should be
something like
12-, 13-16, 17-20, 21-35, 36+

college student can not pull off an LBS DECK EITHER

Absoltrainer

06/14/2006, 11:53 AM

I agree with you tina about the 40s and the 20 BUT don't forget that if a kid has rich parents it makes no difference.

Adam Garcia

06/14/2006, 11:59 AM

just keep it as it is........Its fine right now if we did need to change it make it japans way

Epyon0015

06/14/2006, 12:00 PM

I agree with the 30+ division.

And we shouldn't be playing for scholarships. Let the kids work for those themselves.

I agree with him. We need more age groups. if you are old then 20 you dont get a scholarship. Lets the kids have them. It would be nice to play people of the same age or older.

I hate to see a Perant take away a kids chance for a Scholarship.

NoPoke

06/14/2006, 12:09 PM

Parents can transfer scholarships just like any other scholarship winner.

30+ You know it makes sense ;p

Robbgobb

06/14/2006, 01:00 PM

I like the age groups the way they are. I don't think there is anything wrong with them. If an older age group is added then I do believe that a group that is 20 or more older would be good. From the people I talk to, it seems that most of the ones that are 20 and older have a harder time getting practice in. That is really the only reason why I think another age group is needed.

pokeMATHter

06/14/2006, 01:15 PM

PUI has said over and over it isn't going to happen. Since the older player generally beats a younger age (at least for those under 20) increasing the age group cutoffs will increase the average age of the "winners." PUI has clearly said that their market is the younger kids. Plus their overall prize package budget is considerably more than any other card game. Adding another age group is way to expensive, without cutting the prizes drastically for everyone else.

But I agree with many of you. It will never happen but I'd like to see an "over 30" group, possibly with just a trophy on the line. It seems a fair number of the "over 30" crowd are already "winning" paid trips to major events - as legal guardians for under 18 players.

David's Confused Pokedad

06/14/2006, 01:51 PM

It seems a fair number of the "over 30" crowd are already "winning" paid trips to major events - as legal guardians for under 18 players.[/QUOTE]

I sure wish I could win one this way. maybe one day. David where are you? You listening to this?

Angry_Altaria

06/14/2006, 02:15 PM

I think its fine how it is. I've seen 4 year olds play. 4 vs 12? Nah. :P

Epyon0015

06/14/2006, 03:38 PM

But I agree with many of you. It will never happen but I'd like to see an "over 30" group, possibly with just a trophy on the line.

That like a great Idea. A trophy good and no other prizes. Then Invites to world also but not to pay for trip

ChubbyChilupa135

06/14/2006, 03:47 PM

I think they should keep it the way it is!

annisarich

06/14/2006, 07:52 PM

12- is kinda elementary school
13-17 is high school/middle school
18 -29 is high level
30+ and I brought a kid would be fun to play w/o hurting the "leet" players

Epyon0015

06/14/2006, 09:33 PM

12- is kinda elementary school
13-17 is high school/middle school
18 -29 is high level
30+ and I brought a kid would be fun to play w/o hurting the "leet" players

This is the best one so far

Professor Elm

06/14/2006, 09:44 PM

Personally I am prepared for the shift I am gonna face come my birthday this month.
I am moving up to 15+ this month. I am looking forward to it, but at the same time I dont have a bunch of money to spend on decks. Well, I could if I wanted, but I would like to do other things with my money rather than solely invest it in a 200 dollar deck. This is the prediciment for many teens (like me) who dont have parents, brothers, or any family that plays the game.
I still manage to make most of the decks that I want by trading and borrowing though.
BUT I think it should be divided in a way to where all teens are stuck together, kids are in one and adults are in another.
Much like Tina said.
I would really like 12-,13-17,18+. That would be really coo.

brendan2236

06/14/2006, 10:47 PM

How about making it 11-, 12-15,16-20,21+ that way you do not have to much of an age difference in any of the age categories, I think that 11-18 is way to big of a gap.

annisarich

06/15/2006, 05:04 AM

there needs to be a seperation between
20 yr olds and 40 yr old 40 yr old have more money.
it should be
something like
12-, 13-16, 17-20, 21-35, 36+

college student can not pull off an LBS DECK EITHER

Getting cards is not the question.

A 20 year old usually is in school, doesnt have a wife, doesnt have children and is not on the board of any civic organizations. Therefore the 20 year old has a much easier time devoting himself/herself to practice and preparing for an event.

Its unfair to have most parents stuck playing against those players.

Robbgobb

06/15/2006, 05:54 AM

I believe that the age should never be raised on the lowest group at the very least. There is plenty of children playing and trying to compete that are no where close to what the 11 and 12 year old children bring to the game. These are the kids that is wanted in the game. I know my nephew would not want to play if he kept losing all his games and could not win because he was playing kids 4+ years older than him. I don't see a need or reason to raise the lowest age groups age range. Everything else is fine to talk about but Pokemon has stated that the lowest age group is who they cater to and so the changing of it is not something I think is in line with that.

GregDollar

06/21/2006, 02:12 AM

I disagree and it IS "broken" and hopefully it WILL be fixed.

This game IS more about the kids so anything over 18+ would be useless and more "time" consuming.

The largest problem IS the -10.
What my 10 year old daughter went through this year is a prime example of how messed up the -10 group is.

We went to at least 6/7 Gyms this year and 90% of them cut to T2. She missed the cut by .1% each time. She was either tied for 2nd or 1st, but the % kept her out. She honestly never got a fair shot and was d0nk’d out of most of them.

Honestly, major events should NEVER cut to T2 - it's just not fair to the more experienced players - no one should be "given" a trip. Shifting to -12, 13-17 and 18+ would add more balance to the Top cuts and increase them - giving the more experienced players a fair chance to compete.

It's obvious that Japan saw this and why they have the ages set-up that way - why WE have waited SO long to adjust to that age-format is beyond me and hasn't made much sense.

I know some of you parents want your “4” year olds to win trips to Worlds and get really cool prizes - plus you don't want them to get discouraged, but for those type of events, they should not be “given” a win so you can be happy and get a “free” trip. Same goes for the Grinder. Because the ages are so low at -10, in the past most that simply showed up got the invite – it shouldn’t be that way – it’s simply not fair.

These 4/5/6/7/8 year olds will have THEIR moment when they get older – they shouldn’t “steal” the other’s moment now =/

ColdFire64

06/21/2006, 02:59 AM

I highly doubt the age groups will change any time soon. I've seen many posts like this and PUI would clearly defend their opinions of the structure every time. Sure, it would be "cool" to do it like Japan, but here in the USA, PUI's main concern is the 10- group and marketing to them kids. If those kids go up against 12 year olds who have more experience and knowledge of the game, what are they to think other than being discouraged and quitting? If a lot of the 10- kids end up quitting, that would be a big financial blow to PUI, IMO.

True, it is the parents (who also compete in this game) that buy all the packs and stuff, but if their kids are angry, generally the parents get pretty angry too and it's like a domino effect that goes downhill from there.

GregDollar

06/21/2006, 04:25 AM

You make good points, but I still disagree. There are definately pros and cons to each side and I'll obviously live with either one.

As a parent of three, I disagree w/ your comments as well. Parents should know and address their younger children with the fact that in heavy tournaments where a lot is on the line it will be harder for them.

Honestly, "most" children from say 4-7/8 really care about one thing...getting more packs and cards! Yeah!!! They don't understand the concept of Scholarships and being the "best" in the world - or even the finances that make all this happen.

I'm with PUI on this one - whatever they do - as well, but I will say that changing it to -12 would not be that much of an impact other than making the group-count more balanced all the way around and would balance the Top cuts as well. I see a much more balanced group in the other ages as well giving us-30+ players a bit of breathing room. :P

You do make a point as far as the "marketing" aspect of the game, but when all is said-and-done, you can market to 4-12 year olds all you want, but we - the parents and older teens flip the bill. If "we" are the ones not happy - that's where you will loose the money ;)

With all the BS this game has brought us - especially this year - we still enjoy the game and the friendships we aquire...so, as of now - it's all worth the headaches and we will adjust either way.

Though this is all a nice "debate" - we're still beating a dead horse, I don't believe PUI really listens - they'll do what they feel is the most money-generating decisions...as a business man, I totally understand.

Gym Leader Blaine

06/21/2006, 06:29 AM

Same goes for the Grinder. Because the ages are so low at -10, in the past most that simply showed up got the invite – it shouldn’t be that way – it’s simply not fair.

They have changed the rulled for the Grinder this year, only the Top 16 of the 10& Under will get in.

Here is what has posted on the PUI site:

The top 16 finishers in the 10 & Under age group receive:

Competitor slot to play in the Pokémon TCG World Championships on Saturday, August 19th

meganium45

06/21/2006, 06:58 AM

Greg, respectfully, the age groups are fine.

It is the marketing in the individual areas that needs to increase to attract the 10- age groups.

There are several places around the country that are low on 10- players...

Heck, look at ANYWHERE that had to cut to a top 2 in the Gym Challenge!

I know I can speak for Mike Cook and myself in that we do a LOT to attract and retain our 10- player base.

I present Pokemon to Cub Scout Groups. I present Pokemon weekly at one of my game stores as a "teach a new player day" - all 10-s.

It takes a lot of work and resources to attract these kids. I have spent hundreds on theme decks that I have given away as a part of these promotions, and significantly more in other prizes to attract the younger group.

The problem is, attracting the 10- group takes EFFORT. They will not travel to many large events. Most all 10- are LOCAL, which in my mind really shows the growth potential of the game in an area.

When the 10- stop coming to play...the game may as well shut down.

I wish there was a magic wand I could wave and show everyone how to get 15 10- players at every event...problem is there is not. It is not only getting the new player through the door, it is then making them enjoy the game, feel a part of the group, and want to bring their friends.

Aw, Greg, taking a shot at my 4 year old, I take it, I feel it...SLICE...

For the record...Alex probably played in LARGER fields (averaging 18+ in each 10- group) with Worlds Class Players, and he finished no less than 3rd in any event, going a combined 19-5 in the Swiss rounds, losing only to Andrew K, James B, and another event winner in the swiss, beating 2 players who qualified in 10- last year. There were no "easy" fields of 4 players for him. Check the players before you dice my kid, will you. Kid plays a mean deck, and plays it well. He did finish in the top 16 at the 2nd largest regional in the Nation too...none of those "easy" regionals for him either!

Talk to you all soon.

Vince

Robbgobb

06/21/2006, 05:44 PM

Honestly, "most" children from say 4-7/8 really care about one thing...getting more packs and cards! Yeah!!! They don't understand the concept of Scholarships and being the "best" in the world - or even the finances that make all this happen.

I disagree with this on so many levels. I know children in that age range. I have seen all the ones that I know cry because they lost. They still recieved packs for where they finished but that is not what they wanted. They wanted to be the "BEST" in their age group.

I do know that changing the age groups would stop me from trying to get my nephew to all possible events until I was sure he was capable of playing at the level needed to win. I could not stand the heartbreak he would have.

PokePop

06/21/2006, 07:59 PM

Greg: If a 4 year old had an undefeated record (or nearly so, with high resistance) and made a cut that your daughter didn't, how was the trip "handed to them"?

Sure, the Grinder invites were handed to the 10-, but your example doesn't hold up. And that's just looking at "your side" of it.

GregDollar

06/22/2006, 03:12 AM

uh...was there a 4 year old that “kept” my daughter out?...okay… Man, I’ve even been emailed as if I was talking about a particular situation. People, I’m giving my opinion on why I agree with an age change – it’s not directed to a particular person or event =/ ??

Here is my "main" issue - and THIS HAS NOTHING to do w/ my daughter. Heck, I’m not even complaining or “whining” – that’s how this game is and we have to live w/ it fair-or-not.

Having T2 in ANY age group is simply not right – ESPECIALLY when a lot is on the line. Yeah, it happens and there's not much that you can do about it when there's not that many people in the age group and the software is designed that way, but - hello...the subject is "Change Age Group" - and that's what I'm debating. I was simply using my daughter as an example of what happened to her ALL year.

For ANY person to miss the cut ( at ANY age group ) - even when say 4 of them are tied - does not seem fair to the others when it's a cut to T2 - to miss it, because of a fraction of a %. No one is "given" T2 ( weather it’s my kids or “your” kids ) , but the others that were tied earned it JUST as MUCH as the T2. Again, back to the main topic --- having -12 would simply open it up to higher cuts, giving all the tied players an equal and more fair chance.

This just happened to be what my daughter went through this year – it could be YOUR (anyone’s) child that goes through it next year. I’m simply stating my opinion that would benefit all involved.

PS
(I just read Meganium's EDITED post)
WT-heck Vince - who is your kid? Do I know you? You actually thought I was taking a shot at you or your kid? You actually think I'm that kind of person? Come'on man, I have no problems w/ you or your kid or ANYone's kid for that matter and weather someone beats mine or not, or I don't think something is "fair" would still not make me take a shot at someone. You're getting defensive on a subject I was giving my opinion on, which BTW is just as legit as yours or anyone else's.

TacC

06/22/2006, 03:53 AM

I would like to see 10 and under 11-15, 16-20 and 21 and up.
This would also end the Top8/Top 16 debate once and for all.Oh sweet heaven, make a 21 and up Division so I can win something.

I'd like to see a change in the age divisions but I'm not sure its 100% needed. I would like to see some sort of increase in the oldest age group, say 17+. The problem we would have is that 1)players would move DOWN in competition initially and 2)it creates more work for TOs and makes competition easier on the players in the oldest age group (though that would be welcome with the Worlds Invites dissapearing).

meganium45

06/22/2006, 05:19 AM

Sorry Greg,,,

I was not the only one who thought the shot was at my 4 year old...cause when you use that age, I think I am about the only one with a competitive 4-year old playing.

My 4-year old loves to play, but after a year of being a "doormat" he really likes to win. He loves hearing the instructions for the finals tables, and has actually sat at 2 "Final" Tables, finishing 2nd both times.

4 year olds, 8 year olds, 9 year olds, they all want to win....the new players may not understand it totally, but anyone around the game for more than 4 weeks wants to win.

I will agree with you on this point, I think it is unfair in a huge event like a gym challenge to have the 10- winners and losers decided by an 11-14 year old who some of the 10- have to play. I would rather see, for a small 10- group (or any group) that is the numbers are less than 8, that they play a round-robin style fomat rather than play out of their age group, that way the 10- champion is decided by 10- players.

Vince

PokePop

06/22/2006, 06:18 AM

Greg: Sorry. You started talking about your daughter's miss of T2 and then transitioned into a point about 4 year olds being given a win and I thought one was a continuation of the other.

I also agree that T2 at large events is harsh, unless there are like only 4 or 5 players in the group.

GregDollar

06/22/2006, 07:18 AM

np -not my style anyway.
Christina will have a "fair" shot at Nat's:thumb:

homeofmew

06/22/2006, 07:33 AM

well i dont agree with the 20+ NOT get scholarships.
I am 20 :b. us college people need money too for school.
I agree with the current age of i think 25.

I just like the fact once I hit 25 I really can't play for anything anymore.
I do not have anyone else in my family who plays pokemon.
Can you transfer money to non pokemon people?

There needs to be an option for older people maybe 21+ to get the money in another form.

Um being a college student is hard: pat time jobs, full time student, and little money.
Parents I understand sometimes do not play the best of decks some do.
I know some parents that play LBS, and Mewex ect..

hoemofmew does not have the funds to buy something like LBS.

TheDancingPeanut

06/22/2006, 07:34 AM

WT-heck Vince - who is your kid? Do I know you? You actually thought I was taking a shot at you or your kid? You actually think I'm that kind of person? Come'on man, I have no problems w/ you or your kid or ANYone's kid for that matter and weather someone beats mine or not, or I don't think something is "fair" would still not make me take a shot at someone.

I like Vince a lot, and this reply isn't really directed at him or his comments. But I would just say that from personal (recent) expierience I have learned that (sometimes) people in this game take every thing you say as a personal attack or cheap-shot, even when its obviously not meant that way. I think that's because (some) people are way too focused on who is "better" than whom. (Some) people care far too much about winning at all costs and moving themselves up some imaginary ladder.

Greg, I don't know you THAT well, but in the last year I've come to know you enough to know that you would be the last person I'd expect to take shots at anyone's kid.

My impression of you (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if you've got a problem with someone you'd let them know very explicitly.

homeofmew

06/22/2006, 09:37 AM

thats a good idea
thanks :)

BLiZzArD

06/23/2006, 12:16 AM

Ok for all the players complaining about LBS costing so much maybe if you would have gotten the cards when they were released and kept them around waiting for the "perfect combo" you wouldn't be in the mess your in. Cards never cost as much at release as they do after they've been "discovered" for the next hot deck.

BLiZz

Sceptilious

06/23/2006, 04:52 AM

Hmmm, I don't know about that anymore. I think it use to be that way, but now the prices of some of the cards are expensive right from the release (or even the Japanese version before release). Charizard, Lugia, Mew come to mind. Actually I don't think the price of Blastoise has changed all that much ?? Also keeping mutiple ex's (which are typically the most expensive cards that are playable) of all ex's that could potentially be used in the hot new deck could get expensive (although I guess you would have lots of trading material this way :wink: )

:pokeball:

Ok for all the players complaining about LBS costing so much maybe if you would have gotten the cards when they were released and kept them around waiting for the "perfect combo" you wouldn't be in the mess your in. Cards never cost as much at release as they do after they've been "discovered" for the next hot deck.

BLiZz

Riq

06/23/2006, 08:49 AM

Pokemon needs a senior division for us old folks. Last year no one over 20 was in the top 4 at
worlds.

I would like to see 10 and under 11-15, 16-20 and 21 and up.
This would also end the Top8/Top 16 debate once and for all.

Yeah i like these age groups because im turnig 15 right after Nationals and i dont want to play the REALLLY GOOD people!!!!:lol:

survivor

06/24/2006, 08:22 AM

Just keep the format like it is right now, but if we need to change it then 12- , 13-17 and 18+ would be a good idea to do.